Personhood Amendment in Mississippi Likely Won’t Ban Abortion

Assuming the amendment is approved and assuming it does not succumb to state legal challenges from those who say the Mississippi Bill of Rights can’t be amended, the personhood amendment will not ban abortions.

Defining human life as beginning at conception or fertilization is not a new concept in the pro-life movement as states have defined human life in such a scientifically accurate manner for decades — including before the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that invalidated state abortion bans across the country.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of personhood language in Roe and reaffirmed its view as early as 1983 . . . [and] addressed the issue again in 1989 in the Webster decision. . . . [W]hen the state of Missouri adopted similar language as the Mississippi personhood amendment, the Supreme Court ruled both in 1983 and again in 1989 that such language can’t be used to ban abortion. Further, the Supreme Court made it clear that states can’t even use such language, as Missouri attempted, to justify any sort of pro-life laws that limit or reduce abortions.

Rehnquist makes it clear that the personhood amendment is little more than statement of position, a feel good declaration made by a state that sets forth what it believes in terms of the beginning of human life but not something that has any effect on the status of legalized abortion. . . . At this point in jurisprudence related to abortion, until and unless the Supreme Court’s makeup is changed to the point that it would be ready to consider overturning Roe, state courts will continue to interpret personhood language within the confines of Roe — thus continuing legalized abortion. . . . 

In an interview with Baptist Press, Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel for Americans United for Life, says his group is neutral on the personhood amendment for these reasons and he highlighted that fact that it is being promoted at a time when the Supreme Court is still pro-abortion and not ready to reverse Roe.

“Some are concerned about that, but I frankly don’t think it’s a direct challenge to Roe,” Forsythe told Baptist Press. “A direct challenge to Roe would be a criminal prohibition on abortion. This is not a criminal prohibition on abortion.”

He said the personhood amendment is not the right legislative vehicle to end abortion, such as the proposed bans on abortion proposed in South Dakota, even if the court were ready to reverse Roe.

“Imagine a chest of drawers, and you’ve got four drawers,” he said. “On the top drawer you’ve got the constitution. This amendment is being put in the top drawer. But the thing that affects abortion is in the bottom drawer. That’s a criminal statute.” LifeNews